FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) MUR 7683 

Our Revolution; ) 

Bernard Sanders ) 

) 

 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF COMMISSIONERS 

SEAN J. COOKSEY AND JAMES E. “TREY” TRAINOR, III

The Complaint in this matter alleged that Our Revolution, a 501(c)(4) organization, was 

established by Senator Bernard “Bernie” Sanders, a federal officeholder, and that Our Revolution 

solicited, received, and spent funds outside of the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 

requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”).

1 The 

Respondents deny the allegations, asserting that while Our Revolution was “inspired” by Senator 

Sanders, he did not establish it, and Our Revolution therefore was not subject to the Act’s soft 

money-restrictions.2 In a thorough First General Counsel’s Report, the Office of the General 

Counsel (“OGC”) concluded: 

Based on the available information, it appears that the creation of Our Revolution 

was influenced by Sanders, that Sanders had some involvement in Our Revolution’s 

initial launch activities, and that several people who worked for Sanders’s political 

campaigns either went on to work for Our Revolution or left Our Revolution to 

work for Sanders, but the available factual record does not indicate that Sanders 

[established, financed, maintained, or controlled] Our Revolution within the 

meaning of the Act and Commission regulations.3

In light of this conclusion, OGC recommended that the Commission dismiss the allegations against 

Senator Sanders and Our Revolution.4

 

1 Complaint (Jan. 22, 2020), MUR 7683 (Our Revolution).

2 Response of Senator Bernard Sanders (Mar. 19, 2020), MUR 7683 (Our Revolution); Response of Our 

Revolution (Mar. 16, 2020), MUR 7863 (Our Revolution).

3 First General Counsel’s Report at 1–2 (July 8, 2021), MUR 7683 (Our Revolution). 

4 Id. 

MUR768300135
2 

We agreed with OGC’s analysis and supporting inferences, which are consistent with the 

positions we have taken in several previous matters. We write separately to highlight certain 

aspects of OGC’s reasoning and to emphasize that nothing about this matter or its Respondents is 

sui generis. The standards OGC applied to Senator Sanders and Our Revolution should apply to 

every other respondent. 

Mistaken Filings

One piece of evidence central to the allegation that Senator Sanders established Our 

Revolution was Our Revolution’s organizational documents. Our Revolution filed Articles of 

Incorporation that included Senator Sanders’ wife, his campaign counsel, and a consultant to 

Senator Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign as members of Our Revolution’s Board of 

Directors.5 Our Revolution subsequently amended its filings nunc pro tunc to correct the 

composition of its Board of Directors and remove these individuals.

6 OGC credited the Our 

Revolution’s assertion that its initial filing was incorrect and was not evidence of Sanders’ control 

of the organization. 

Yet this conclusion is at odds with OGC’s approach in MUR 7501 (Bill Nelson for U.S. 

Senate). There, the Commission also had initial reports that the respondents said were filed in 

error. In that matter, OGC said: 

Although [the Democratic Executive Committee of Florida (“DECF”)] and the 

Committee argue that the disbursements in question were made for the purpose of 

DECF salaries and personnel costs, and that the attributions to Nelson’s campaign 

were simply administrative reporting errors resulting from a miscommunication, 

DECF offers no specific information about the nature of the miscommunication. It 

is unclear as to why staff, without some information regarding the activities 

performed by DECF staff, or without direction from DECF officials, would 

attribute the salaries to Nelson and the Nelson Committee.7

OGC went on to state that “[t]he record in this matter is not clear” and recommend that the 

Commission find reason to believe and launch an investigation.8 We disagreed and wrote 

separately that “the Commission does not have a set of facts before it that supports the Complaint’s 

allegations. It merely has speculation that the Florida Democratic Party’s initial memo entries were 

more accurate (and unintentionally revealing) then their amended reports.”9 We concluded that

5 See id. at 4. 

6 Response of Our Revolution at Exhibit C (Our Revolution, Articles of Amendment of Domestic Nonprofit

Corporation (Sept. 6, 2016)), MUR 7683 (Our Revolution).

7 First General Counsel’s Report at 7, MUR 7501 (Bill Nelson for U.S. Senate).

8 Id. at 8.

9 Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Allen Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and James E. 

“Trey” Trainor, III at 2 (June 28, 2021), MUR 7501 (Bill Nelson for U.S. Senate). 

MUR768300136
3 

“speculation is insufficient to support a reason to believe finding, let alone the costly and invasive 

investigation recommended by the Commission’s Office of General Counsel.”10

We are encouraged to see that OGC’s analysis and recommendations here are consistent 

with the position of the controlling group of Commissioners in MUR 7501 (Bill Nelson for U.S. 

Senate). Speculation is insufficient to support a reason-to-believe finding, and the Commission 

should not automatically assume that a mistaken filing is really an unconscious admission of guilt.

Candidate Spouses and Other Campaign Employees as Agents of the Candidate

A second important part of OGC’s analysis was its treatment of the relationship between 

Senator Sanders and individuals associated with Our Revolution. As noted above, the original 

Articles of Incorporation for Our Revolution included on its Board of Directors Senator Sanders’ 

wife, his campaign counsel (who also represented both Senator Sanders personally and Our 

Revolution in this matter), and a paid campaign consultant. In addition, at least four out of Our 

Revolution’s ten initial employees were former Sanders campaign staffers.

11 Further, three out of 

eleven members on the revised Board of Directors were previously associated with Sanders, 

including his former Senate chief of staff.12 OGC concluded, however, that these relationships 

create only a “circumstantial” relationship between Senator Sanders and Our Revolution that is 

insufficient to support a reason-to-believe finding.13

We agree. Circumstantial relationships alone do not support a reason-to-believe finding: 

the involvement of a candidate or officeholder’s spouse, a candidate or campaign’s counsel, or 

former campaign or official staff is insufficient to attribute activity to the candidate.

Press Releases and Reports

We further believe that OGC applied an appropriate level of skepticism toward the press 

releases and reports put forth to establish Sanders’ control over Our Revolution. Here, “Our 

Revolution’s website and four press releases from Our Revolution’s five years of operations state 

that Our Revolution was ‘founded’ by Sanders.”14 In addition, at least one press report referred to 

Our Revolution as “a new organization formed by [Sanders].”15 But OGC notes: 

Beyond these statements, there is no other information corroborating the notion that 

Sanders himself took an active or significant role in the group’s establishment. 

None of the news articles which purport to state that Sanders “founded” Our

10 Id. at 2–3 

11 See First General Counsel’s Report at 5–6 (July 8, 2021), MUR 7683 (Our Revolution).

12 Id. 

13 Id. at 15. 

14 Id. at 16. 

15 Id. at 6 (quoting Jonathan Karl & Benjamin Siegel, Bernie Sanders’ New Political Group Raises Campaign 

Finance Questions, ABC News (Aug. 19, 2016), available at https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanderspolitical-group-raises-campaign-finance-questions/story?id=41520854).

MUR768300137
4 

Revolution contain a direct quote from Sanders or contain any descriptions of his 

activities.16 

In light of these facts, and the Respondents’ corresponding denials, OGC concludes: “[T]he current 

record does not indicate that Sanders played an active or significant role in the actual process by 

which the group was created,” therefore, “there does not appear to be sufficient indicia that Sanders 

established Our Revolution under the meaning of the Act and Commission regulations.”17 We 

agree with that assessment.

At the same time, this analysis stands in contrast to OGC’s approach in MURs 7370 and 

7496 (New Republican PAC). There, OGC noted, “Scott continued to be identified as the Chair of 

New Republican in the press at least as late as March 2018. We are aware of no information 

suggesting that New Republican attempted to correct the press’s identification of Scott as its Chair 

after December 2017.”18 This contention was later cited in OGC’s legal analysis to support a 

reason-to-believe recommendation.

19 

We disagreed with OGC’s recommendations in MURs 7370 and 7496 (New Republican 

PAC).20 Rather than shifting the burden to the respondents to prove their innocence and 

affirmatively correct erroneous press reports, Senator Scott should have been judged by the 

standard applied to Senator Sanders, which critically examined press reports for corroborating 

information and direct quotes from the candidate. We appreciate OGC’s shift from credulously 

accepting press reports as true to critically evaluating them for both corroborating evidence and 

direct candidate involvement. 

Other Evidentiary Issues

In addition to the points above, we also wish to highlight the following inferences from 

OGC’s analysis:

• Serving as the “keynote” speaker at a launch event supporting an organization “inspired” 

by a candidate’s campaign is insufficient to infer that the candidate established the 

organization;21

16 Id. at 16. 

17 Id. at 17.

18 First General Counsel’s Report at 9 (Dec. 20, 2020), MURs 7370 and 7496 (New Republican PAC) (citation 

omitted). 

19 Id. at 20 (“Further, Respondents do not explain why the Committee spokesperson told a reporter that Scott 

stepped down as Chair of New Republican in February 2018.”).

20 See Statement of Vice Chair Allen Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and James E. “Trey” 

Trainor, III (July 21, 2021), MURs 7340/7496 (New Republican PAC).

21 See First General Counsel’s Report at 4–5 (July 8, 2021), MUR 7683 (Our Revolution).

MUR768300138
5 

• “[E]ven if it were assumed that Sanders was responsible for naming Our Revolution, this 

itself is not sufficient to show that Sanders ‘established’ the organization;”22

• “Our Revolution was inspired by Sanders’s campaign, and thus it is not surprising that 

individuals who worked for the campaign would go on to work for Our Revolution;”23 and 

• A candidate sending a fundraising email on behalf of an independent organization does not 

mean that the candidate established, financed, maintained, or controlled the organization.24

Clarifying the Reason-to-Believe Standard 

Finally, we note the implications this matter has for the reason-to-believe standard. In its 

First General Counsel’s Report, OGC determined not only that each of these pieces of evidence, 

standing alone, did not satisfy the reason-to-believe standard, but also that all of this evidence 

taken together was insufficient to support a finding of reason to believe that Senator Sanders 

established, financed, maintained, or controlled Our Revolution. 

We have long argued that, particularly where First Amendment rights are concerned, the 

burden is on the government to support a reason-to-believe finding with more than innuendo and 

mere speculation. We are pleased to see that OGC has taken a similar approach in setting the bar 

for a reason-to-believe finding somewhere above the facts and circumstances present in this matter. 

Consistent with the principle that like cases should be treated alike, we fully expect this Sanders 

standard to apply in the future to similar matters and evidentiary questions. 

_________________________________ September 21, 2021_______________ 

Sean J. Cooksey Date

Commissioner

_________________________________ September 21, 2021_______________ 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III Date

Commissioner

22 Id. at 17. 

23 Id. at 20. 

24 Id. at 7. 

MUR768300139